Wtf is a rhizome

[Anonymous No.14371200]

And what is a body without organs or deterritorialization. Wtf is this shit? Is he a commie or something I don't get it? Can someone explain what dis nigga is saying

[Anonymous No.14371202]

>>14371200
He's just a pseud that came up with a bunch of borderline useless abstractions. Only good thing he did is inspire Land.

[Anonymous No.14371205]

>>14371202
Not good enough. Explain to me what the fuck he's talking about or leave

[Anonymous No.14371220]

>>14371200
Read Plato first, then his views on other philosophers, then start with Logique du Sens

[Anonymous No.14371235]

>>14371205
How about you read the books yourself and get the fuck out?

[Anonymous No.14371236]

its an egg

[Anonymous No.14371272]

>>14371200
>Wtf is a rhizome
A good example would be the humble potato

[Anonymous No.14371293]

A rhizome is a way to represent thought or ideas in a non hierarchical forum, ie. Without preconstructed narrative, an analogy would be experiental knowledge. A body without organs is an "abstract" (not at all but good enough for you) being that directs will and flows of desire. Deterritorialization is a process of decoupling "fact" (not really), from narratival imposition or without a culture centric outlook. He was not a communist or a Marxist, he did however use some Marxist concepts and ideas to present his theories to the Marxist intellectuals of France at that time (they were commies).

[Anonymous No.14371499]

>>14371200
Why do fuck his nails look weird. That nigga is gross af

[Anonymous No.14371753]

>>14371499
He's french. Also cutting nails and washing yourself is fascism.

[Anonymous No.14371758]

Something that is the thing that makes two distinct things become called inter-connected.

[Anonymous No.14371784]

>>14371200
Body without organs is simply a body without the over-determination, freed from even the automatic responses. Although what Deleuze meant by 'body' here is perhaps a reference to his earlier book Logic of Sense. Body isn't necessarily the human body, but just body in general.

this >>14371293

[Anonymous No.14371788]

>>14371200
He's kind of like Hegel where he is trying to say something but its nested in complete gobbledegook, Deleuze fags will say that he does that "to make you question your presuppositions" but really all it does is make him a pain to read.

[Anonymous No.14371872]

>>14371200
He's a philosophy dickhead on acid, nothing more. Ignore everything he said. Just another ape playing verbal games for extra bananas in lieu of work

[Anonymous No.14371886]

if you are only interested in figuring out someones politics, why bother trying to read philosophy?

the politics of deleuze and guattari is probably most closest to anarchism, but in a way it isn’t something actually outlined or endorsed by them, as they think we need different ways of thinking in order to achieve different political models

look at Iraq war, or the Arab Spring, or Africa... consevative-liberals think that democracy and capitalism will just naturally rise up if you destabilise a region, but the fact is there are certain systems of thought that create a system. One of those is western thought, which is about hierchies, systematisation, exclusion, etc. which creates the kind of society, both positive and negative traits, that we live in.

so d&g, rather than blueprint anything overtly political, begin to sketch out a new epistemology

[Anonymous No.14371979]

>>14371753
imagine the smell!

[Anonymous No.14372115]

>>14371753
>washing yourself is fascism
lol

seriously though, its funny you should be concerned with the anti-fascism rhetoric, because by Foucault and Deleuze’s standards, SJWs would also fall under the fascist/microfascist label for their dogmatism

[Anonymous No.14372163]

>>14371499
>>14371753

[Anonymous No.14372172]

>>14371220
Good answer

[Anonymous No.14372180]

>>14371293
>deleuze was not a marxist

[Anonymous No.14372187]

>>14371784
It's not even his original concept, they stole it from Antonin Artaud

[Anonymous No.14372199]

>>14372180
He was just a neolib sjw like foucault

[Anonymous No.14372213]

>>14372199
yes Deleuze and Foucault were extremely neoliberal, well done

[Anonymous No.14372221]

>>14372199
>deleuze
>ess jay doubleuew

[Anonymous No.14372227]

>>14371200
>wtf is a rhizome
It's like a potato, but fascist.

[Anonymous No.14372238]

>>14372213
>>14372221
He was also a wannabe situationist but larping revolutionary doesn't make one a marxist -- that said his book on marx would have been interesting given his anti-hegelianism but too bad he offed himself

[Anonymous No.14372255]

>>14372227
Is Badiou nazbol?

[Anonymous No.14372258]

>>14372255
Redguard

[Anonymous No.14372267]

>>14371200
>And what is a body without organs or deterritorialization.
He was talking about EoE

[Anonymous No.14372549]

>>14372180
He is as far from a marxist as just about anyone, you fucking pseud. Don't post again – plus you're anglo.

[Anonymous No.14372669]

>>14372163
So he was your typical pseud of his time, got it.

[Anonymous No.14372751]

>>14372669
is a pseud a word thick people use to call actual philosophers? cus i think you are right

[Anonymous No.14372805]

>>14372751
I call pseuds pseuds who can say "yet you choose the shabbiest interpretation of all" (thereby blatantly admitting his need for the interpretation to sound "cool" and "complex" with "epic" "theory" name-drops and references) when listing random pseudointellectual nonsense justifying his pseudointellectual desire to be "cool" and "quirky" and "mysterious" in the most basest of ways, i.e. by having poor hygiene (which even an autistic kid could accomplish).

[Anonymous No.14372925]

>>14372805
what's your opinion on Difference and Repetition?

[Anonymous No.14372962]

>>14372255
He's a Maoist

[Anonymous No.14372973]

>>14371200
>Is he a commie or something
yes

[Anonymous No.14373085]

>>14372163
>not cutting your fingernails and collecting them just in casw

[Anonymous No.14373110]

>>14372925
I don't think about it.

[Anonymous No.14373358]

>>14373085
impressive, I just started this year

[Anonymous No.14374229]

>>14373358
>>14373085
Incredibly based

[Anonymous No.14374501]

>>14371272
Cool coincidence, reading the new John Langan short horror story book and they literally say "do you know what a rhizome is?" and the main character responds "yeah like a potato?"

too spoopy for me


/blogpost

[Anonymous No.14374589]

>>14371200
trying to read Deleuze without historical content is a guaranteed way to get dunked on and feel like a brainlet
he is something called a post structuralist, which is a movement responding to structuralism, which is a response to a bunch of other shit stretching back to the ancients

you don't have to study THAT far back, but I would at least get familiar with enlightenment thinkers, because Nietzsche and every important thinker after him are pretty much people shitting on the enlightenment or upholding it
Deleuze is deep into the metaphysics of ideas
rhiozmes are a metaphor for a certain sort of idea structure (rhizome being a term for subterranean root structure)
I haven't studied him enough to comment on the other stuff, but I wouldn't get too deep into it unless you have a firm grasp on epistemology before hand

[Anonymous No.14375414]

here's an intro to deleuze
it's a lecture, skip to 11:20, watch at 1.5 speed or higher to save time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgh9hMgSKEM

[Anonymous No.14376518]

>>14372669
long text me cant read :(

[Anonymous No.14376601]

>>14373085
Can you tell me why you keep your fingernails? It seems to be more common than many people realize. A Korean woman i knew kept hers for many years and i wanted to ask her why but her eyes glowed a little more than normal which made me think she might be a witch and because i didn't want to get cursed for causing offense i never asked

[Anonymous No.14376801]

FELIX PASS THE BONG

[Anonymous No.14376838]

>>14371784

Maybe reading Book II of Spinoza's Ethics could inform the conception of body by Deleuze (and also his book on Spinoza, the expressionism one).

[Anonymous No.14377196]

>>14371200
the body without organs is exactly what it says it is– it's the accumulation of forces in the body that resist the ruthless processes of "organ"isation it is subjected to. Organisation is not the realisation of new objects, but rather the violent shutting-down of innumerable possibilities contained in the organism, according to a normative and procedural mechanism that reduces organs (or machines) to specific combinations (or assemblages). Chickens contain the genetic potential to become velociraptors, and on the plane of the BwO they are virtually coexistent; it is only because those potential traits are cancelled through the process of becoming-chicken that we are not at risk of being eaten by our own food source. Evolutionary psychology is itself nothing more than the successive mental enclosures imposed on genetic mutation, or bipedal tunnel-vision. The BwO is like the pool of virtual potentials which are then deselected to give rise to the traits that define the organism as we know it.

[Anonymous No.14377207]

>>14371235
>>14371205
>>14371202
Sincere.

[Anonymous No.14377306]

Rhizome? Just think the internet and hyperlinks in general

[Anonymous No.14377395]

>rhizome
when a plants root comes up and becomes another plant which is actually the same plant. the root keeps going horizontally while popping out new branches. deleuze uses this as a metaphor to describe how ideas progress
>body without organs
a vessel
>deterritorialization
when culture has progressed so far that it's nothing like its origin and it has no connections to its origin

[Anonymous No.14377884]

I thought the BwO was meant to be a limit, an example being the Übermensch being the limit of humanity, or Capital being the limit of a capitalist society?
Correct me if I'm confused